Landlord Wont Change Contract

[Truly Skint]

Hello, can anyone help me please

My daughter is looking at a flat share in London. She has found a flat currently occupied by two brothers one of which is emigrating. The contract is still within the first 6 month term and both of their names are on the contract. I advised my daughter that she would need to ask the landlord to revise the contract, substituting one of the existing names with hers and then signed by all three parties. She has asked the landlord to do this and he has refused on the basis that the contract is still active and therefore he is happy that he is covered. Essentially I think by all accounts he is just lazy and wants an easy life !!

Whilst I have advised my daughter that to protect all parties, the contract should be amended, will she be exposed if she moves in without her name being on the contract. I have asked her to get a receipt for the initial deposit and for any rent paid but is that OK ie: is the landlord more at risk than she is if it had to go legal for any reason ?

Thanks in advance

Mike

[Grampa]

You cannot just swop and change people on existing contracts. You have to create a new contract. Think about it, if the landlord had to serve a s21 a court order wouldn't grant possession for at least six months from the start of the tenancy and you would be in a situation where which would appear on the face of it would need 2 different possession dates for each tenants

So what are the options?

1 The landlord grants a new tenancy in your daughters and one of the brother names. (the best solution)

2 Your daughter moves in and pays rent to the brother and becomes a lodger to the brother but it doesn't leave her with a lot of protection as a tenant/ occupier.

3 She moves in without a contract and pays rent to the landlord and has a verbal (parol) tenancy which is perfectly legal. The implications of this impact on the landlord more than the tenant. It would mean:

A court hearing would be needed by the L/L to evict and not just rubber stamped as normal.

It would make it very unclear if there was a 6 or 12 month tenancy which effects any s21 notices.

The contract would default to a AST which is good.

Any deposit still needs to be protected as normal.

If this is the route you go down make sure you get receipts of all payments and a clear record of the moving in date.

One final thought is if the L/L is a bit lazy why don't you just get a off the shelf AST and fill in the required info and ask the L/L to sign when you pay the first payments. Make sure you have a copy each. It would still be up the L/L to protect deposit etc.

[Grampa]

Of course another option is to not move in and find somewhere else.

[Mortitia]

This landlord sounds very flakey - think twice about trusting him with your daughters's hard earned cash.

It may well be sheer laziness but will not benefit either party. If she did move in and he accepts rent from her she will have a tenancy as recognised by the Housing Act 1988.

[Richlist]

I agree.....surely there are other properties available from better landlords. This can't be the only accomodation available.

Do what we landlords do when faced with an application from a bad tenant......we find someone else.

[Truly Skint]

Thank you all for your input. I agree completely with your comments however I can only advise, which is what I have done and hence trying to minimise any risk

In summary, it looks like the landlord is more at risk then her and from what I can see

1. Make sure that she gets a signed receipt for every months rent paid direct to the landlord

2.

[Truly Skint]

Thank you all for your input. I agree completely with your comments however I can only advise, which is what I have done and hence trying to minimise any risk

In summary, it looks like the landlord is more at risk then her. She has undertaken the following:

1. Make sure that she gets a signed receipt for every months rent paid direct to the landlord

2. She has got him to sign a document stating that the deposit paid by the original party has now been transferred to her name and she has paid her share to the departing tenant and confirming the moving in date

3. She will complete an inventory of equipment and its condition on arrival

4. She has got him to sign a document agreeing to the non applicable clauses of the existing contract

That done, and given that by virtue of the fact that she is paying rent ie: tenant by default, is there any circumstance that she is at a greater risk than she would be by having the contract in her name

Kids !!

[Grampa]

If the landlord isnt doing their own inventory it would be up to your daughter if or not to give a copy of hers to him.

If he doesnt have one he cant cant claim for damages because he couldnt prove them but make sure hers are signed and dated on each page.

Its no wonder some landlords get themselves in a pickle when renting their property because they cant be bothered to educate themselves or instruct a professional.

[Carryon Regardless]

To view this from the LL's point of view.

There is an active tenancy and after a few minutes of occupancy one T wishes to leave.

Both 'present' T's have individual responsibility for the 'whole' tenancy for the duration of the 6 month 'contract'. The LL has all he needs so why entertain extra hassle ?

One T leaves, the remaining T takes a lodger. All that goes on there is between the remaining T and the lodger. The lodger has near to no rights why should the LL care ?

Where the LL has screwed up is by providing any evidence that he has accepted the new T as such. She now has rights as a T of the LL, but without a surrender document from the departing T so does He.

The question of responsibility toward 'any' damage is irrelevant as no one can now be proven to have been responsible. Any 'doubtful' check in has no value as it hasn't been closed out with a check out on departure of the departing T (who is still a T anyway) and that tenancy can't be held to account as the LL has granted a new tenancy without defining property condition at that point.

The new T has no need of an inventory.

The new T has a 6 month tenancy but as Grampa the start is ambiguous.

In practice a contract clarifies a LL rights far more than the T's. Any unfair terms will be void in court anyway. The document agreeing to "non applicable clauses" is interesting and can only confuse further.

The LL wants an easy life it's clear, I don't see the new T is likely to be an easy T. I see an increased risk that He will regret this one.

[Grampa]

I assumed maybe incorrectly the inventory was referring the incoming tenants room only and not the whole property. But as the previous tenants deposit has now been assigned to the new tenant would the landlord (rightly or wrongly) assume and try to use it against damages for the whole property which may have occurred prior to the new T moving in?

Yes we know a landlord would have to prove it, if it went to court but as we all know most people (tenants) won’t take it that far and accept the deductions.

The best option for the new tenant and it goes against the grain to say it is don’t pay the last month’s rent before vacating and suggest it is taken from the deposit held due to the situation/arrangement it was pointless to take one unless used only for arrears.

Even if the landlord had spent 5 mins on a forum such as this he potentially could save himself a world of grief and expense.

[Truly Skint]

OK, I think that the situation is quite clear and thank you all for your valued interest and comments

One thing that I omitted inadvertently to share, is that I am also a landlord and in my opinion, it is always best to set out everything straight from the outset to ultimately make your life easier in the long term and establish some tenant loyalty. Admittedly, as has been the case on a couple of finger burning occasions, it doesn't always work out the way that it was planned but never the less, I can certainly sleep easier

I was amazed at this guys stance and unwillingness to change the contract and ultimately accept some recognition for this bluebird (pardon the pun) that has landed on his doorstep with no proactive marketing required at his cost. If only this would happen to me !!

Again, thank you for your valued input once again

Kind regards

Mike

[snorkerz]

If daughter sends a properly worded assignment document to the landlord, and then the landlord accepts further rent, the assignment will be recognised in law. That means daughter steps directly into the shoes of the departed tenant accepting all his liabilities and gaining all his 'benefits'. This has a further advantage that the 'terms' are clear as they are exactly as the original contract.

[Grampa]

Yes but all the dates will be different for each tenant. You cant take over the dates of the original tenant. Anybody who moves in will have a new tenancy in the eyes of the law.

Ok so if original tenants A & B had a tenancy 1st july - 31st dec . Tenant B moves out 30th oct & tenant C moves in 1st nov. Does tenant C have a tenancy to 31dec (end of original tenancy) 30th April (6 months after moving in) or 31oct (12 months after moving in).

What notice does the tenant or the landlord give to quit/s21.

An judge may take the view a assignment has only given tenant C a 2 month tenancy so there is no "benefit" to that tenant. If the assignment states 6/12 months there you go, that is a new contract it just happens to have the term/clauses on an old contract, but what if tenant C doesn't get given a copy of it.

This is dangerous ground.

I stand to be corrected on this but ARLA legal trainers say you cant do it which is also the same view of the Guild of residential landlords and the training company we use in Brighton. It may be the case it is possible to use a assignment but strongly advised not so for the above reasons mentioned above.